DC 291 
.C44 
Copy 1 



f .:/ 



H M y " ^ y y^^w^y HH p«y V^y^fwt*^ l li i »y U li yjt ^ y^^^^j W H i ^^yHlwj ii if i yij l^p^^^p^y y y i ^ yn 



FRANCE AND GERMANY. 



ADDRESS 



MARQUIS DE CHAMBRUN, 



DELIVERED AT 



SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, 



FEBEUABY 11, 1871. 



WASHINGTON: 

H'GILIi & WITHEROW, PRINTEKS AND STEREOTI'PERS. 
1871. 



,^,^'f'''-'i,,t, •^•■'^•■••'•■•^'''''^'•■'■■--•■•■•^'■■^■.■■^•■■^'■■^■^'■'■'■'■'■'■■^'■'■''■'■'■'- 



FRANCE AND GERMANY. 



A.Dr)RESS 



BY THE 



MARQUIS DE CHAMBRUN, 



DELIVERED AT 



5PRINaFIELD, ILLINOIS, 

FEBRUARY 11, 1871. 



WASHINGTON: 

M'QILL 4 WITHBKOW, PKINTERS AND STEREOTTPEKS. 
1871. 



;o 



6^^' 

6'^"' 



Vi" 2 6> 2. 



ADDRESS. 



A meeting was held on the 11th of February, 1871, at the Hall of Representa- 
tives, of Springfield, (Illinois,) to organize a committee of relief on behalf of the 
suffering French. 

The Marquis de Chambrun was introduced to the audience by Mr. Haines, of 
Lake county, and he spoke as follows : 

Ladies and Gentlemen: In addressing your meeting to- 
night I am unwilling to recognize among you different 
classes of American citizens. 

I know that a great many have come here from Ireland 
and others from Germany, nevertheless I cannot consider 
them but as citizens of the United States. Indeed I am 
aware that, in order to be vested with the full rights of 
American citizenship, they have been obliged, in accordance 
with the law of the land, to renounce forever "All allegi- 
ance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or 
sovereignty whatever, and particularly to the prince, poten- 
tate, state, or sovereignty whereof they were at the time 
citizens or subjects." 

Thus every one of you, without distinction of origin, is 
boimd to stand by the American Republic — to ascertain to 
the best of his abilities what is the interest of the United 
States and to uphold that interest. I am further satisfied 
that, within my own knowledge, your fellow-citizens of Ger- 
man birth have not failed to understand the extent of their 
duties. On the other hand to show what unbounded confi- 
dence you have placed in them I have only to refer you to 
the example of one of your most prominent adopted citizens, 
the Hon. Carl Shurz member of the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations. In that capacity he has a hand in every 
important diplomatic transaction of this country. What 
would be the situation of your foreign affairs if that distin- 
guished gentleman could be controlled by the recollection of 



his former country? In intrusting him with that important 
position, the Senate of the United States have well under- 
stood that the sworn duty of a German naturalized in your 
country would be most faithfully performed. 

As for myself, although a Frenchman, and intending to 
remain so, the hospitality of the American people which I 
have enjoyed for years, the feeling of profound friendship I 
have for them warrant me in saying that I am sure that I will 
not utter a word that would he detrimental to American in- 
terests; therefore I believe that, although I may differ with 
some of your adopted and worthy citizens, we can discuss 
freely together to-night some of the numerous questions 
arising out of the terrible war which is still raging in Eu- 
rope. 

In the first place, what have been up to the present day 
the relations of the United States with France? In the mid- 
dle of the last century the leading thinkers of France arrived 
at the following conclusions : they said that the old feudal 
edifice of Europe should be Overthrown ; that in its stead the 
principles of human equality and human freedom should be 
engrafted upon the nations of the Old World. In one word, 
they thought that a free democracy should take the place of 
a foredoomed past. At the same time, on this side of the 
Atlantic, you, the sons of those Englishmen who wrenched 
the Magna Charta from an English king, were preparing the 
great modern movement which lead to your independence. 
And so it may be said that both France and the thirteen 
British colonies, under the leadership of a mysterious Prov- 
idence, were preparing the advent of modern democracy. 

The first practical steps on behalf of the incoming order 
of things were made on this continent, and France, bred in 
similar ideas, came to your succor. About the details of 
the struggle I have nothing to say. But let me remind you 
that the same Frenchmen who fought by your side and 
who followed with such close attention the deliberations of 
the convention which framed the fundamental law of your 
land, left your country to become at home the leaders of the 
great party which in 1789 proclaimed the French " bill of 



rights," and secured the success of that revolution which 
inaugurated the modern era of continental Europe. 

Let us pass over the following years and come to the treaty 
by which ISTapoleon the First ceded Louisiana to the United 
States. Unquestionably this was intended to secure the po- 
litical greatness of the United States. ISTapoleon realized at 
once that the era of colonial possession was gone by; that 
the increase of power which the territory of Louisiana would 
confer on the United States was the best guaranty of peace 
and friendship between France and her. It was thus that 
you were enabled to extend your peaceful conquest of the 
wilderness, this conquest which has been progressing ever 
since in the most steady and legitimate way, and which has 
finally enabled you to plant on the Pacific coast the flag of 
the Union. Thus we can see your empire extending from 
one ocean to the other, and thus we can see millions of men 
wrenching every day from the wilderness large territories 
which they transform into civilized communities: — glorious 
conquests which cost no blood and secure the happiness of 
men. 

From the date of the cession of Louisiana to the time 
when your civil war begun, it may be said that no serious 
trouble disturbed the alliance and friendship of our respect- 
ive countries. For the greater portion of that long period 
France, controlled by liberal and progressive leaders, tried 
to carry in effect the principles of her revolution of 1789. 
And let me remind you that it is in that period of peace and 
liberty that a Frenchman, then unknown, came to your shores 
to study American democracy and describe its workings. 
"Who among you has not heard of the work "on American 
Democracy" which the illustrious and most lamented Alexis 
de Tocqueville brought back to France ? Through him your 
institutions became known in France and through him the 
new liberal school of Europe has been made acquainted with 
you. 

And when I come to the period of your civil war, if I meet 
with the recollections of the French expedition in Mexico, I 
must remind you that, whatever might be said about that 



6 

scheme, at least it cannot be doubted that the Liberal party 
of France, the party who have always sympathized with you, 
were the first to oppose it. The very men who control now 
again the destinies of their country were foremost in their re- 
sistance to the Imperial policy in relation to Mexico; and if 
3^ou wish to find the bitterest opposition against it, don't 
read the dispatches of Wm. H. Seward or the discussions of 
the United States Congress but the speeches of M. Thiers 
and M. Jules Favre in the Corps Legislatif. 

Thus we reach the time when the war broke out betwe^^ 
France and Germany ; and here, I am sorry to say, serious 
charges have been made against France. It has been said, 
and repeated over and over again, first that France wan- 
tonly attacked Germany, second that she has recklessly 
prolonged the war when all human chances of success were 
against her. These two charges are of such moment that I 
am bound to answer them. 

Let us refer briefly to the state of Germany from 1863 to 
1866. At the end of 1863, Prussia and Austria allied 
together went to war against Denmark. What was the true 
policy of France? Most emphatically, in my own judgment, 
she ought to have protected Denmark. Did the Emperor 
isTapoleon follow that policy? On the contrary, when Eng- 
land urged him to act with her, and to send jointly men-of- 
war to the ISTorthern sea, ]!^apoleon made a negative answer. 
Thus the neutrality of France led to the bloody conquest of 
the two Danish Duchies. Again in 1866 when Prussia 
making a bold move threw the gauntlet down to Austria and 
her German Confederates, France remained so perfectly 
neutral that Count Bismarck said one day to the French am- 
bassador at Berlin, M. Benedetti, " Our confidence in your 
government is so great that we do not leave a soldier on the 
left bank of the Rhine." 

That policy which I would rather not to criticize before 
you was so favorable to Prussian interest, that my illustrious 
friend M. Drouyn de Lhuys, then Minister of Foreign 
Afiairs for France, was compelled to resign his portfolio. I 
have read myself among the papers found in the Tuil- 



leries after the fall of the Empire a State paper written by 
M. Drouyn de Lhuys, in which the foresight of the French 
Minister revealing itself with perfect clearness, showed him 
that the weak and vacillitating policy of the Emporor in re- 
lation to Prussia had, most unmistakenly, prepared that 
Power for further and still more ambitious designs. 

'Now let us consider the relative positions in which France 
and Germany were placed on the eve of the declaration of 
war. 

In the first place, — and I ask you to mark this fact, — the 
immense military establishment of the N^orth German Con- 
federacy which after Sadowa victorious Prussia was hardly 
strong enough to force upon her diffident confederates, was 
fast drawing to its close. It had, indeed, been adopted for a 
period of five years, and that period ended on the 1st Janu- 
ary 1872. I do say there were serious reasons for Prussia to 
fear, unless unexpected events happened, that she would be 
unable to secure the consent of the German States for her 
keeping up after the end of this period of five years such a 
costly military establishment. Indeed it is well known that 
in 1869 and the beginning of 1870, evidences of reaction 
against Prussian control were shown everywhere throughout 
Germany. I have only to refer you to the election- returns 
of those eighteen months to prove the correctness of my state- 
ment. 

On the other hand what was at the time the military situ- 
ation of France? The military bill voted in 1868 provided 
for a certain reorganization of forces, but its provisions were 
far from being fully carried into effect. However official 
statements relating to the condition of the military establish- 
ment of France will be found in the debates which took place 
in its Corps Legislatif on 30th June, 1870. On that day M. 
Thiers rose in that assembly and stated that France had 
hardly three hundred thousand men ready to take the field ; 
that the reserves provided for by the military bill passed two 
years previously were not drilled, and that the mobile guards 
could not be organized before 1873. In answer to these state- 
ments the Secretary of War made no denial, but, on the con- 



8 

trary, admitted their entire truthfulness. So at that date it 
cannot be questioned that Germany had her full military es- 
tablishment ready and France had not. 

I pass in a few words over the former part of the incident 
relating to the candidacy of a Hohenzollern to the throne of 
Spain. I do not remember that the most pro-German papers 
of the United States have ever said that that business was con- 
ducted in a way that was not offensive to the French people. 
In fact the prima facie evidence, the secrecy kept, the way in 
which the intelligence itself was communicated were consid- 
ered so offensive, not only by the unanimous opinion of 
France, but also by the neutral opinion of Europe, that the 
King of Prussia himself was obliged to make concessions 
and thus, under the pressure of a hostile opinion, the Prince 
of Hohenzollern ceased to be a candidate for the throne of 
Spain. 

Such was the state of affairs on the 12th of July. For 
some hours neutral Europe dreamt that peace was again 
secured. 

On the following day (13th of July) Lord Loftus, the Brit- 
ish ambassador to the Court of Berlin, acting under the im- 
pression that the compromise between France and Germany 
had been finally effected, called on Count Bismarck. I beg 
you to listen to parts of the dispatch, in which Lord Loftus 
describes to his Government the conversation he had on that 
day with the Chancellor of the K'orth German Confederacy: 
"The feeling of the German nation, said his Excellency, 
(meaning Count Bismarck) was that they were fully equal 
to cope with France, and they were as confident as the 
French might be of military success. The feeling, there- 
fore in Prussia and Germany was that they would accept no 
humiliation or insult from France. ***** 

The Count added: "If the preparations of France still 
continue, we shall be obliged to ask the French Government 
for explanations as to their object and meaning. * * * 

"After what has occurred, we shall require some assurance, 
some guaranty, that we may not be subjected to sudden 
attack." 



9 

Here let me observe, in passing, that it is rather difficult 
to see how Germany, with her eleven hundred thousand men 
under arms, could be afraid of a sudden attack on the part of 
France which could barely muster three hundred thousand. 

"It was impossible (added his Excellency) that Prussia 
could tamely and quietly submit. ***** 

"I could not (said further his Excellency) hold communi- 
cation with the French ambassador after the language held 
to Prussia." 

And Lord Loftus closes his report to his Government in 
the following way : "It is evident to me," says the ambassa- 
dor, "that Count Bismark and the Prussian ministry regret 
the attitude and disposition of the King towards Count Ben- 
edetti, and that in the view of the public opinion of Ger- 
many, THEY FEEL THE NECESSITY OF SOME DECIDED MEASURES 
TO SAFE-GUARD THE HONOR OF THE NATION." 

[Extracts from the diplomatic pa2:)ers communicated to Parlia- 
ment on the 28th July 1870.) 

Here I am willing to let my case rest. In fact it is true 
that France attacked Germany, but was not Germany more 
eager for war than France? Supreme question the solution 
of which I am perfectly willing to leave to an impartial pos- 
terity. Indeed I feel confident that, when all the papers 
relating to this terrible affair are given to the public, it will be 
shown that the true cause of war was the very policy followed 
by ITapoleon III from 1863 to 1866. From that date war 
between France and Germany became certain. The two 
countries have been justly compared by a French author, Mr. 
Prevost-Paradol, with two railroad trains which start from 
opposite positions on the same track and which run in differ- 
ent directions; their meeting is certain and an appalling dis- 
aster is unavoidable. 

Further I am ready to say that I freely admit that in the 
diplomatic transactions which immediately preceded the war 
Napoleon IH could not cope with the Chancellor of the 
German Confederacy. I am also ready to say that the skill 
of Count Bismarck enabled him to place his vain-glorious 
but incompetent opponent in the wrong situation. I am just 



10 

as willing to admit that in the conduct of the war Marshal 
Bazaine was not the equal of Count Moltke. Where is the 
cause of the inferiority of the French side? I hold that 
France to-day, at this time of appalling distress, perceives it 
clearly. She understands, I hope, that no nation that has 
been once free can give up her freedom without being guilty 
of the crime of killing herself, and that a democratic peo- 
ple who have placed themselves under the control of a master 
go slowly but surely to certain death. This is the terrible 
lesson which France has just given to herself and to the 
world. May she, as well as others, profit by it! 

Let us now examine the second charge made against 
France, viz: That she has recklessly prolonged the war 
when all human chances of success were against her. 

"War was declared on the 19th of July. On the 3d of Au- 
gust actual operations began. On the Ist of September the 
Emperor, being surrounded at Sedan, surrendered. On the 
4th of the same month a Republic was proclaimed in Paris. 
A few days later the most honorable, most eloquent Vice 
President of the Committee on l!!Tational Defense Jules Fa- 
vre started himself to meet Count Bismarck. He met him 
near Paris, at a castle which, by the way, belongs to Baron 
Rothschild. There Jules Favre ofi*ered peace to the Prussian 
Minister. He told him : " We men now in power have al- 
ways been men of peace, men of liberty; we voted against 
this abominable war and we want to re-establish peace; we 
acknowledge that France has been defeated and we are willing 
to pay any amount of money you want" — in fact, as Count 
Bismarck states in his report of the conversation, "all the 
money we have. 'Now, furthermore, if there is any moral guar- 
anty we can give you we are willing to give it." And Count 
Bismarck answered him : "It is not what we want; what we 
want is French territory." " I remarked to Count Bismarck," 
says Jules Favre, " that the consent of the people whom he 
thus disposed of was more than doubtful; that the rights of 
Europe would not permit him to disregard it." " O yes, in- 
deed," he replied to me, " I am perfectly aware that they do 
not desire us. We shall have some hard work cut out for 



11 

US by them, but we cannot do otherwise than take them. I 
am certain that, at a future time, we shall have a fresh war 
with you, and we wish to undertake it at every advantage." 
So you see it is a question which comes to. this: The German 
Chancellor wants French territory, and he does not care about 
the wishes of the population. In other words I find here 
again the old right of conquest as it has been practiced too 
long on the surface of the earth. It was the case of Poland, 
still bleeding every day after more than seventy years of par- 
tition and oppression. It was the case of Denmark defeated 
in 1864 by this very Prussian Grovernment. It was the case 
of Saxony in 1866. It was the old policy of Europe which 
•has been protested against by all liberal and thinking men. 
On this side of the Atlantic this very question has been dis- 
cussed. The most learned chairman of the Senate Commit- 
tee on Foreign Relations, Mr. Sumner, said in 1869 speak- 
ing of this question of a vote of the people and applying it 
to Canada: "Sometimes there are whispers of territorial 
compensation, and Canada is named as the consideration; 
but he knows England little, and little also of that great Eng- 
lish liberty from Magna Charta to the Somersett Case, who 
supposes that this nation could undertake any such transfer; 
and he knows our country little and little "also of that great 
liberty which is ours, who supposes that we could receive 
such a transfer. On each side there is impossibility, and ter- 
ritory may be conveyed but not a people." 

This is the case as it appeared before France. I believe 
that the leaders of the Provisional Government understood 
that this struggle might be hopeless, but nevertheless that 
it was necessary. You know there are two sorts of protests : 
the protest entered upon by force, and the protest entered 
upon by right. When a man is weak who is in the right he 
must protest; and if he cannot succeed in the protest, he 
must die for his principles. If in such case it is the supreme 
right of a man, it is also the supreme right of any nation; 
and woe unto the nation which, in such a case, should not 
die and should not know how to die. So the war went on; 
disaster followed disaster; finally Paris — ^ which I liked bet- 



12 

ter to see surrounded by tins belt of fire than to see it in all 
its splendor — Paris itself yielded; tbe time of desolation had 
come. And now Germany is triumphant; these populations 
for which we were, in duty bound to fight are helpless at the 
feet of the conquering armies, and the great power has been 
created of this empire of Germany. 

Is its formation an advantage to the United States ? If we 
judge from the examples of the past it is evident that the 
answer would be no. 

In the first place, the foreign policy of the United States 
has been benefited to a great extent by the system of equilib- 
rium and balance which has been existing in Europe for 
centuries; whenever the United States have had trouble with- 
a European nation, that nation was so held in check by the 
others of Europe, that the United States have been enabled 
to grow up and strengthen themselves. So, for instance, the 
Monroe doctrine has been established by this very reason. 
In 1823 England was dissatisfied with the other European 
nations; the British Government placed itself in commu- 
nication with the United States, and advised them to main- 
tain their right to preserve the American continent from 
European interference; other instances might be quoted. 

On the other hand I believe that the day an immense Power 
is created in Europe, that very state of things, so favorable 
to the United States, ceased to be; and the United States are 
to a great extent exposed to the ideas of conquest of that 
growing Power in Europe. Your history illustrates plainly 
this truth. So for instance the British supremacy on the 
high-seas, which that Power secured for itself toward the 
end of the last century, resulted for you in the war of 1812. 
Then you were compelled to fight for the principle of neu- 
trality. Is it not evident that that principle so dear to you 
would not have been placed in jeopardy had not England 
wielded an absolute power on the seas? 

Thus it may be said that neutrality itself and above all 
neutrality on the high seas, which forms perhaps the main 
feature of your foreign policy, is connected to a great extent, 
with a maintenance of the equilibrium of power in Europe; 



13 

therefore I am at a loss to see why certain pro-German pa- 
pers of tliis country have announced with delight the de- 
struction of that very order of things which has been thus 
far so favorable to the interests of their own country, while 
political wisdom and foresight required, to-day at least, that 
the United States should behold these changes with feelings 
of anxiety for their own future. 

Besides there is a doctrine which you are all ready to stand 
by. You think that as a Christian nation you are bound to 
uphold a policy of peace among nations; on this point all your 
leading statesmen agree. The most progressive among them 
have even gone so far as to devise political means for the 
establishment of an international tribunal powerful enough 
to maintain a lasting system of peace. These schemes to 
further human progress I do not here discuss in detail. I 
like better to quote the following sentences relating to the 
practical question of disarmament which I find in the lecture 
of Senator Sumner "on the duel between France and Ger- 
many: " "All history," says he, "is a vain word, and all ex- 
perience is at fault, if large war preparations, of which a large 
standing army is the type, are not the provocatives of war. 
Pretended protectors against war, they have been the real 
instigators to war ; they have excited the evil against which 
they were to guard. The habit of wearing arms in private 
life exei-cised a kindred influence. So long as this habit 
continued, society was darkened by personal combats, street 
fights, duels and assasinations. The standing army is to 
the nation what the sword is to the modern gentleman." 

In order to show how this lesson given in the name of 
humanity by an American statesman, has been heeded in 
Europe since the overwhelming successes of the German 
armies, I beg to read the following extract from the speech 
of Queen Victoria, at the opening of Parliament, on the 9th 
instant: "The lesson of military experience afforded by the 
present war," says the Queen, "have been numerous and im- 
portant. The time appears appropriate for turning such 
lessons to account, by efforts more decisive than heretofore 
at practical improvement. ***** 



14 

"And if the changes from a less to a more effective and a 
lasting system of defensive militaiy preparation shall be 
found to involve, at least for a time, an increase of various 
charges, your prudence and patriotism will not grudge the 
cost, so long as you are satisfied that the end is important 
and the means judicious." 

In this declaration of the British Grovernment you can see 
the signs of the "coming times." "While the Empire of 
Germany is already engaged in reorganizing her forces, 
while France will find means to re-establish her broken 
legions, free and peaceful England herself feels that her 
power is threatened and that her safety requires great sacri- 
fices and immense armaments. 

Is it for such a result that the pro-German papers of this 
country have been contending for the last six months? 

And now about principles. You believe in the first place 
that men are free and created equal; you believe also that 
no government is possible without the consent of the gov- 
erned; and you believe further that any government to 
stand must be a delegated government, coming from the 
people, depending on the people and responsible before the 
people. These are the principles, so far as I understand them, 
on which rests the American Government. And now you 
want to propagate them abroad — to extend them outside 
the limits of your continent. Listen to what is said by a 
conservative and Tory organ of England, celebrating the fall 
of France and the elevation of Germany. I quote from the 
Saturday Review : " What a heavy blow and great discourage- 
ment," says that paper, "their success in the present war has 
inflicted on the Democratic party in Europe is as yet hardly 
recognized. But it is instinctively felt by the Democrats 
themselves. For the first time since the establishment of the 
United States, the advancing tide of Democracy has been turned, 
and the ebb has begun." 

It is true that here I meet with an ofiicial statement on the 
part of the President of the United States, which is most 
likely founded on the diplomatic correspondence of your 



16 

representative at Berlin, Mr. Bancroft; General Grant has 
just sent a message to the House of Representatives, in which 
he calls attention to the establishment in Germany of politi- 
cal "institutions analogous in their character to those of the 
United States." I cannot but remind you that, of late years, 
there have been very wonderful similarities discovered be- 
tween other countries and the United States. In 1867, for 
instance, Turkey accredited a representative to the United 
States. The distinguished minister thus selected repaired at 
once to Washington and called on the President to deliver 
his credentials. In the address which Blaque Bey delivered 
on that occasion he stated to the President that he was struck 
with the wonderful likeness that he noticed between the in- 
stitutions of Turkey and those of the United States. 

From that date till to-day, this first discovery has given 
rise to a great many others of similar character. Close on 
the footsteps of the Turkish minister Mr. Bancroft came 
up. He studied the constitution of the ISTorth-German Bund 
and concluded that after all it looked like the supreme law 
of his own land. Here I must confess that, at that time, I 
took a good deal of trouble to ascertain for myself to what 
extent that rather surprising discovery was true; but I have 
always been unable to follow up the line of reasoning of his 
Excellency Mr. Bancroft. 

In the meanwhile Mr. Burlingame, who headed the Chinese 
embassy, came to Washington. I had the pleasure of meeting 
him several times and he often said to me, " Dont you know 
that after all the United States and China look very much 
alike. What a pity I have not time to write a book on that 
subject!" 

N"ow we come back again to Germany, no more the 
Northern Confederacy of 1867, but organized as an Empire 
under the legitimate successor of Frederick Barbarossa. And 
a representative of a free and democratic nation, Mr. Ban- 
croft, dares to state to his Government that the astonishing 
resurrection of the Middle Ages which he beholds looks 
like the institutions of his own country. 

Here I must answer him not in my own words but by 



16 

referring him to one of the best authorities among the Ger- 
man writers of our time. Here is the opinion of Heinrich Von 
Sybel on the so-called liberal constitution of the new Ger- 
man Empire : " But I already hear the main objection urged," 
says Mr. Yon Sybel in an article on the German Empire 
printed in the English Fortnightly Review of January 1871, 
"this is all very fine and good; but how about the all-im- 
portant point — the political freedom of the nation or in 
French phraseology the government of the country by 
the country. Is not the rule of the King or the Emperor, 
though judicious, mild and successful, a personal govern- 

"It is certain," answers Mr. Yon Sybel, "that the new 
Empire will possess no responsible ininisters, and the Impe- 
rial Parliament no power of impeaching them and no right 
of passing an annual mutiny bill. The Prussian Chambers 
moreover are still without the right of voting the yearly 
supplies; are still denied all direct influence in the govern- 
ment of the country. All direct means, therefore, of expel- 
ling an unpopular ministry from office are wanting. If a min- 
ister fails to obtain a majority for a bill of course that bill is 
lost; but no Prussian minister would on that account dream 
of resigning office or of modifying the course of his policy. 
"VYe have a constitutional monarchy, indeed, but not a par- 
liamentary government." 

And a little further on Mr. Yon Sybel says again : 
" Parliamentary government means the government of the 
majority, for the time being, of the representatives of the 
people. It is essential therefore to its existence that there 
should be a homogeneous majority in Parliament and that it 
should be able to form a ministry from its own members. 
ITow both these requisites hitherto have been wanting in 
Germany, and I see no prospect at present of the want being 
speedily supplied. The German Diet and the Prussian Par- 
liament are divided into six to eight fractions of which only 
two or three have ever been able to form a coalition, and 
even these coalitions have not always formed a majority, and 
still less a compact or lasting majority. As long as this state 



17 

of things continues it is of itself sufficient to render parlia- 
mentary ministry impossible." 

And further : 

" Should the next elections produce a compact, liberal 
niajority, which I do not expect, and the King should in- 
trust their leaders with the formation of a ministr}^ they 
would probably be able to produce out of their own num- 
ber fitting men, with the requisite technical knowledge for 
the Home Office, and the Ministers of Education and Jus- 
tice; but nothing is more certain than that they would recom- 
mend the King to retain the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, 
War, and Finance, not merely on account of their eminent 
services, but because the majority possess no candidates for 
those offices. Is this state of things solely owing to the 
infanc}'- of our liberal institutions ? Will their natural de- 
velopment eventually give a parliamentary government? 
I think it not impossible hut very doubtful.'' 

Permit me also to make this last quotation from the same 
author : 

"Germany, even after her great victories, will occupy a 
highly dangerous position in Europe; placed, as she is, be- 
tween revengeful France, ambitious Russia, and wavering 
Austria. In this position what we most need is a,Jirm and 
secure government. A presidential election at the end of every 
four years would he loith us a struggle of life and death. 

" There may well be a more ideal condition than ours ; but 
it is for us of vital importance that the sound thread of tra- 
ditional policy should not be frivolously broken." 

These opinions of one of the most distinguished thinkers 
of Germany are, as you see, in direct opposition to the state- 
ments sent here by Mr. Bancroft, and I suppose they answer 
them well enough. 

If you ask me now what is the present situation of France, 
I shall answer you with perfect frankness. In the first place, 
as you are well aware, elections are being held for a Constitu- 
ent Assembly. In my judgment, from the meagre returns 
which the telegraph brings us the moderate Republican 
party, combined with the liberal Conservatives will be re- 

9 



18 

turned in overwhel ming numbers. Thus the supreme power 
in France is again being placed in the hands of those very 
men who have kept alive the liberal traditions of France from 
1789 up to our time. Thrown out of power by the coup d'etat 
of 1851, after twenty years of retirement or of unceasing pro- 
testations, once more they are called upon by France; so it 
may be said thatt he liberal tradition has been again revived 
in the hearts of the French. I am not prepared to tell you 
whether the new French Government will assume the shape 
of a republic, led and controlled by conservatives, or of a con- 
stitutional monarchy surrounded by republican institutions; 
for in either ease the freedom of the people is secured. In 
my judgment as well as in yours the establishment and main- 
tenance of a free government in France is altogether a sort 
of indemnity for the past and the strongest guarantee for the 
future. 

As to the question of peace between Germany and our- 
selves, I have but very few doubts that it will be made, 
and that France will have the manly courage, although 
protesting against the exactions of Germany, to yield those 
portions of territory which are being wrenched from her by 
mere action of brute force. And here I hope further that the 
new liberal government of France will carefully avoid a for- 
eign policy of unceasing agitation and of diplomatic intrigues. 
It must stand in an attitude of reserved dignity, of silent pro- 
test, and wait for the day of reparation. That day will come ; 
it is certain to come, provided France knows how to wait. 

The end of the last century saw Venice bound to Aus- 
tria by the reckless combinations of IS'apoleon. Our time 
has witnessed the unceasing protests of that unfortunate prov- 
ince up to the time when Austria herself understood that the 
period of conquest had gone by, that Venice was an element 
of weakness to the empire : — that she ought to allow her 
to depart. So most likely will this be the case some day in 
relation to Alsace and Lorraine. I should say that this re- 
sult is certain provided France is wise and knows how to be 
patient. 

And now if my voice might be heard on the other side of 



19 

the Atlantic, I would say to ray countrymen, " Look at tlae Uni- 
ted States; look at that nation born in freedom, educated in 
freedom and which has grown up in freedom; she has seen her 
days of trial and she has overcome the obstacles — the terrible 
obstacles — which were before her only by freedom. There the 
people are sovereign ; they delegate their power. E'o man is 
above another, but every one believes in that nation that with- 
out liberty a government is impossible; that without the po- 
litical exercise of that sovereignty, this sovereignty itself 
would be a snare. So that nation has been going on through 
the perils of civil war, through the trials of' a long history, 
and now she stands among the foremost liberal nations 
of the earth; look at it and don't be afraid. Trust those 
very principles of liberty which are the basis of its great- 
ness, and believe that those principles are great enough 
to heal the wounds of the war. Don't be restless about 
the future. You have lost a great deal; your territory 
has been diminished or will be so; but believe in the 
coming vindication. Provided you stand by freedom, your 
example will be followed by and by and you don't know but 
that very freedom will one day go to Germany and overcome 
all resistance and crush this power which has crushed you. 
There is the security of the future. May my voice or may 
this advice, not given by me but by you, be heard on the 
other side of the ocean." 

]^ow I come to the actual object of your meeting. If I 
have succeeded in showing yoii that France deserves your 
sympathies and your moral support I have very little to add 
in relation to this matter of relief. Indeed you know that 
two contending armies, the numbers of which amounted 
to more than one million of men, have been moving and 
fighting for six months upon an area of land which per- 
haps is not so large as your State of Illinois. You can at 
once fancy what the result has been; destruction, loss of 
property and total ruin of the peaceful inhabitants. 

The following letter of M. Drouyn de Lhuye, which I 
hope 3'ou will listen to, contains altogether what you must 
know about the state of affairs there, and all the suggestions 



20 

needed to make you understand what sort of organization 
you can set up to contribute to the relief of the suffering 
people ; it was written to Mr. Treilhard, minister of France 
to the United States : 

" Decembke, 22, 1870. 
" My Dear Viscount : The scourge which desolates our fields not only exhausts 
our actual resources, but, still more, it threatens to destroy the sources of future 
production. The narration of these disasters has been given in a series of arti- 
cles — touching articles— published in a journal of London called the Daily News; 
one can, moreover, find it at every step, written in blood and fire upon the soil 
of our invaded provinces. This fact has inspired many of the agriculturists of 
Great Britain with the generous thought of coming to the aid of the farmers 
and peasants of France, ruined by this war, in procuring for them gratuitous 
contributions in money, grain, roots, seeds, and other means necessary to sow 
their fields. These agriculturists desire very much to place themselves en rap- 
port, with me, in order to realize their purpose I assure you that on its 
part the Government of France will adopt every measure proposed to favor or 
second its execution. The affair proceeds according to our best wishes, as any 
one can convince himself in reading the newspapers. The principal societies of 
agriculture have taken the direction of this movement. Many meetings have 
been held, subscriptions are coming in in abundance, and the unanimous sapport 
of the press extends this idea everywhere throughout the United Kingdom. It 
seems to me, my dear Viscount, that a similar idea ought to arise spontaneously 
on the other side of the Atlantic. The descendants of Washington and of Frank- 
lin have not forgotten, I am sure, that the blood which moistens in great drops 
our furrows, is the same blood which cemented the foundations of the great 
American republic. If, then, you think that the publication of this letter in 
the journals of the United States will help to contribute in developing a sim- 
ilar movement in favor of our agriculturists to that which is organized through- 
out Great Britain, I willingly authorize its publication. Be assured, my dear 
sir, of my sincere attachment. Deouyn de Lhuys." 

To this statement I have nothing to add in urging you to 
take action. I deem it proper to leave the whole question 
with yourselves. As you will readily perceive, it is an appeal 
to your sympathy which is made by France, and I believe 
that she can wait in perfect confidence for the result of her 
appeal. Let me remark only that the more you will do for 
that nation, the more she will learn to believe in freedom, and 
in the efficacy of those institutions and principles of which 
you are among the foremost representatives on earth. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 644J8L6 



